Q.Many
creationists say that microevolution does occur, but macroevolution
does not.Isn't microevolution just
macroevolution taking place in very small increments?

A.From
the perspective of an evolutionist who believes that evolution is responsible
for all the diversity of life on earth, i.e. all organisms are descended from a
common ancestral form, the process called macroevolution does consist of
numerous little changes that could be described as microevolutionary
steps.However, from the perspective of
a creationist who does not believe that evolution is responsible for all the
diversity of life on earth, i.e. all organisms are not descended from a
common ancestral form, microevolution does not "add-up" to
macroevolution over time.

From the
creationist perspective, let's define these two types of "evolution."

Microevolution - variation within the Biblical kind.

Macroevolution - the changing of one Biblical kind
into another kind.

The key to
understanding the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution from
the creationist perspective is the meaning of the term, kind, used in
Genesis 1, and elsewhere in the Bible.In Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25 the Hebrew word, min,
translated in English as kind, occurs 10 times.God states specifically that the organisms
which He created were brought forth as kinds.About the plants God even states that they would bear "fruit with
seed in them after their own kind."This is generally understood to mean that the plants, and all the
creatures for that matter, were created by God to only reproduce their own
kind, thus, one kind would not give rise to another kind.But just what is one of these Biblical
kinds?The scientific term, species,
was often considered to be synonymous to the Biblical kind, however, it is
important to recognize that our fairly recent invention of the term, species,
does not necessarily have any relationship to that ancient Hebrew word, min.Moses, in fact, knew nothing of our current
taxonomical classification system of phylum, class, order, family, genus and
species.Thus, although scientists have
made a strong case for the phenomena of microevolution, i.e. what we identify
as one species changing into what we now identify as a different species, it
does not then follow that these are examples of the Biblical kinds changing
into different kinds.

An example
of variation within the Biblical kind might be that a portion of the numerous
varieties of hawks which exist today have developed from an original "hawk
kind."Note what Deuteronomy
14:12, 15 says, "But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle
and the vulture, . . . and the hawk in their kinds."A Field Guide To The Birds, East Of The
Rockies by Roger Tory Peterson lists only the species of hawk found in North
America East of the Rocky Mountains, and just under the category (genus) called
Buteo there are 9 different species listed.Many of these species are barely distinguishable except to an
experienced bird watcher. An
example of macroevolution would be archaeopteryx, an extinct bird known
only from fossils, evolving into different kinds of birds like eagles, vultures
and hawks.

Could microevolution occur within a
kind?I certainly think so.It is, in fact, essential that organisms
adapt over the generations to their changing environments; otherwise, all life
would be threatened with extinction.But the adaptations of various kinds (species, as scientists would
identify them) occur as a result of the variable genetic expression made
possible by the vast amount of genetic information already present within a
population of any given kind.However,
each kind received the totality of its genetic information at Creation, and the
expression of any characteristics related to that kind is limited to the
genetic information with which it began.Evolution insists that new information can be added to a species'
genome (the total amount of an organism's genetic information), arising by
chance, through random mutations, and producing new characteristics in certain
individuals of a population.Then, as a
result of these new characteristics, those individuals have higher survival
statistics and the characteristics become part of the overall population over
time.

What should be noted is that there
has never been any observation made of new genetic information being produced
by random mutation, resulting in some new characteristic in an organism.The only observations ever made are
that mutations result in the loss of genetic information.Sometimes the loss of information is
beneficial to the organism in a particular environmental situation, but the
benefits are never a result of new genetic information.

So, the
crucial difference in the meaning of the term microevolution as used by
an evolutionist in contrast to a creationist is that an evolutionist thinks
microevolution requires the addition of new genetic information to a species'
genome, but a creationist thinks microevolution requires the expression of
genetic information already present.Obviously, it is the term, evolution, common to both
microevolution and macroevolution, that tends to cloud the difference in the
meaning of microevolution as used by evolutionists and
creationists.Perhaps, the easiest way
to clarify this confusion is to have creationists surrender the use of the term
microevolution, and just use the more descriptive phrase,
"variation within the kind," to describe this phenomena.I'm willing, and from now on, I'll do my
best to be consistent, and leave the term, microevolution, to the
evolutionists.